In a breathless piece of reporting in the Sunday Los Angeles Times, we are told that Barack Obama “left intact” a “controversial counter-terrorism tool” called renditions. Moreover, the Times states, quoting unnamed “current and former U.S. intelligence figures,” Obama may actually be planning to expand the program. The report notes the existence of a European Parliament report condemning the practice, but states “the Obama Administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush Administration’s war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.”

The Los Angeles Times just got punked.

Horton --- who testified as an expert witness for the European Parliament report mentioned --- says the paper conflated the controversial Bush program, which often included torture and long-term abduction into secret CIA-run prisons in foreign countries, and a significantly less nefarious type of rendition, in use since the early 90's, and perhaps even during the Reagan era.

He explains the difference between the pre-Dubya "renditions program", which an Executive Order from Obama has not ended, versus Dubya's "extraordinary renditions program" which Obama has outlawed (despite media reports over the last several days to the contrary), thusly...

There are two fundamental distinctions between the programs. The extraordinary renditions program involved the operation of long-term detention facilities either by the CIA or by a cooperating host government together with the CIA, in which prisoners were held outside of the criminal justice system and otherwise unaccountable under law for extended periods of time. A central feature of this program was rendition to torture, namely that the prisoner was turned over to cooperating foreign governments with the full understanding that those governments would apply techniques that even the Bush Administration considers to be torture. This practice is a felony under current U.S. law, but was made a centerpiece of Bush counterterrorism policy.

The earlier renditions program regularly involved snatching and removing targets for purposes of bringing them to justice by delivering them to a criminal justice system. It did not involve the operation of long-term detention facilities and it did not involve torture.

We're shocked --- shocked --- that the rightwing Tribune Media's LA Times could have been so misleading and inaccurate. Bill O'Reilly tells us constantly how "liberal" they are, so this must be some kind of aberrant editing error, no doubt.

UPDATE:Andrew Sullivan has more on how the Times got "rolled" by the Right. And Washington Monthly explains, in some detail, what Obama's Executive Order doesn't allow (despite the LA Times' irresponsible reporting to the contrary.)

Wasn't your fault. I meant to link directly to the Exec Order originally. Have now added that link. Which is here, for the record.

Additionally, have added a couple of links in an UPDATE with some more explanation for you. The one from Washington Monthly, in particular, offers the distinctions ("translations, for...regular people") that you requested.

Scott C. -

I don't believe I said that "pre-Bush rendition never involved torture". Though if it did, it would have been illegal, as Horton's article mentions: "There are legal and policy issues with the renditions program, but they are not in the same league as those surrounding extraordinary rendition."

He also notes that torture under the Bush program was "a felony under current U.S. law" and a reading of the Obama Executive Order (as nicely translated by the Washington Monthly, now linked in the UPDATE above) reveals how his order excludes the use of torture.

But the article you quoted certainly said that "The earlier renditions program ... did not involve torture". It sounds an awful lot like Scott Horton is making things up which means the LA Times didn't "get punked" at all here.

Educate yourselves people. Remember that the bushbots are going to say or do anything to cause people to turn against Obama. They are relying on your ignorance to achieve their goals. Don't be fooled.

RENDITION (Law)

In law, rendition is a "surrender" or "handing over" of persons or property, particularly from one jurisdiction to another. For criminal suspects, extradition is the most common type of rendition. Rendition can also be seen as the act of handing over, after the request for extradition has taken place.
Rendition can also mean the act of rendering, i.e. delivering, a judicial decision, or of explaining a series of events, as a defendant or witness. It can also mean the execution of a judicial order by the directed parties. But extraordinary rendition is legally distinct from both deportation and extradition.

Rendition in the United States

Rendition between states is required by Article Four, Section Two of the United States Constitution; this section is often termed the rendition clause.

Now compare this with bush's "extraordinary" rendition:

Extraordinary rendition

Human rights groups charge that extraordinary rendition is a violation of Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), because suspects are taken to countries where torture during interrogation remains common, thus circumventing the protections the captives would enjoy in the United States or other nations who abide by the terms of UNCAT. Its legality remains highly controversial, as the United States outlaws the use of torture, and the U.S. Constitution guarantees due process. Rendered suspects are denied due process because they are arrested without charges and deprived of legal counsel.

The last graf quoted by Yvonne, specifically, refers to Article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture, which is specifically denoted and recognized by Obama's Executive Order.

If torture took place via renditions in previous Administrations, they should, of course, be held accountable for that. But Obama has made quite clear that his version of rendition --- counter to what the LA Times indicated in their report (and countless Wingnuts have since echoed as if it was actual fact) --- specifically excludes torture, as per the UN conventions, and in contravention of Bush's "extraordinary rendition" which clearly allowed it, in violation of the conventions and treaties in which the U.S. is a signatory.

I'd have to agree w/ Horton's (and others) conclusion. The LA Times either "got punked" or knowingly mislead readers. Your anectodal, historical allegation does not seem to have anything to do with that question. At all.

I never believed the LA Times story when I first read of it. I have zero confidence in mainstream news media giving people accurate and truthful information. The owners of most of these newspapers and media outlets are really primarily out to manipulate public opinion to further the media owners' other more lucrative business interests, such as the of supply weapons of war and making war. That is where their real money is made.

Disinformation is a powerful tool. Look at who now owns the LA Times. What more would expect? As far as reporting goes, your link is directly to the White House website. How much real investigative reporting would have it taken to have read the order? Perhaps MSM really means Mainly Slipshod Media.

The LA Times story was printed for the same reason any article is printed in mainstream newspapers: it sells newspapers.

It just so happens that what's hot right now is portraying Obama as a hypocrite, or trying to show that he isn't living up to his promises.

I wouldn't be surprised if we continue to see this kind of stuff even from not-so-rightwing publications. A large part of the left is even expecting Obama to fail, and it might cause some to jump the gun.

There really are some things that good old face to face interaction and plain paper documents should be used for.

While an accredited journalist should be someone we all respect, today the reverse seems to be true. I would have to ask, who truly has the authority to accredit a journalist? Seems pretty much like the same kind of question about Witch initiation. Can one be initiated by anyone other than another Witch? Chicken and Egg, can one initiate oneself. And what to do about initiations in DANGEROUS CULTS (Do Click the Link) such as the corporate fascist media has become--a cult.

I find myself turned away, because instead of making a profit at what I do, I PAY FOR IT AND GIVE IT AWAY FREE. So is that a requirement of journalist initiation? MUST BE MAKING MONEY?

I say BS.

Another time I looked into this and there were accredited journalist / media pass being generated at the POLICE STATION.
This is fucking insane! If not over the top dangerous.

Already we have media blackouts, spin, and lies.

ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY.

People like "Media Matters" ain't doing shit. They need a BITE to their work. They don't have a bite. Sometimes they don't have EARS. (I submitted shit to them and ZERO response, they could have at least acknowledge I am a human. But nothing.) A lot of times I go there and it's the same shit. I don't even bother reading it anymore. Oh Michael Savage bla bla bla, Oh Rush blAGH bLagh

Perhaps with the complete fucking lack of ethics in media there should be instead of bars and tone a fucking disclaimer saying, "The following hour of CBS,NBC,ABC,FOX,PBS programming is entertainment, and not reality, even though accredited journalists are producing it."

I will stick to my Music, and occasional fucking local politics. But you know what, I have more integrity that some accredited journalists, even though I don't fully understand the rules of their game.

(Thanks, Brad for your kindness;I really am an old beginner,often messing up.)(While checking Michael Gordon's name, I lost my draft...)
Doesn't some of the problem (ease in doing "punking")reflect the lay-offs of staff at the LATimes and other places? Will we get back to naming sources? Something Earl Caldwell,journalist, of "The Caldwell Chronicle" on WBAI mentions frequently.

On the other hand, the NYTimes "punked" itself(if I may expand the usage) in the run up to the attack on Iraq in stories by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon(?),such as source:Curveball and the other story, aluminum tubes for missile parts.

I first heard the "punked" renditions story on DemocracyNow headlines, which suggests to me that punked stories travel far and fast.

[ed note: It is far simpler to just paste, or type, any URLs directly into your comment if you don't understand how the link button works. The software automatically turns them into links. --99]